Most British broadcast TV still 2/3"

[johannperry]

After the trail blazed by Red over the last few years I'm still struggling to convince british producers delivering to UK broadcasters to shoot their Docs on anything other than 2/3"HD. There are a few pioneers I could mention who are pushing hard to advance this situation but mostly the UK is slow to pick up on Red where Factual and Documentary films are concerned.
I would be interested to hear from other redusers over the pond if they are making more headway in this market.

 

[Hrvoje Simic]

2/3" is more optimized for broadcast. 35 mm demands different setups and tends to slow down and limit shooting in Factual and Documentary in general.

Not all producers want additional focus puller running around and deal with amount of light needed to keep from having to shooting everything at tiny DOF in low light. Also, the more you complicate what's behind the camera, the more people in front of it freeze up.

 

[Stuart English]

2/3"

2/3"

Which is why there will be a big market for Scarlet 2/3" - horses for courses.

 

[Joseph Hutson]

Which is why there will be a big market for Scarlet 2/3" - horses for courses.

Bingo! :yesnod:

 

[Michael Grugal]

2/3" is more optimized for broadcast. 35 mm demands different setups and tends to slow down and limit shooting in Factual and Documentary in general.

Not all producers want additional focus puller running around and deal with amount of light needed to keep from having to shooting everything at tiny DOF in low light. Also, the more you complicate what's behind the camera, the more people in front of it freeze up.

I couldn't agree more.

 

[Michael Grugal]

Which is why there will be a big market for Scarlet 2/3" - horses for courses.

But what about all of our 2/3'' glass built for 3 chip cameras. Now we are going have to go through an adapter.

 

[Stuart English]

2/3"

2/3"

But what about all of our 2/3'' glass built for 3 chip cameras. Now we are going have to go through an adapter.

Scarlet with its integrated 2/3" lens is probably much less expensive than those 2/3" adaptors.

If you are talking about high quality HD 2/3" Zoom lenses, the cost of an adaptor v's the cost of that lens is probably not very significant.

 

[Michael Grugal]

Scarlet with its integrated 2/3" lens is probably much less expensive than those 2/3" adaptors.

If you are talking about high quality HD 2/3" Zoom lenses, the cost of an adaptor v's the cost of that lens is probably not very significant.

Cost is not the issue. What I don't know about the adapter is whether I am sacrificing quality by going through another piece of glass. I have no experience with them so maybe I am wrong.

I'm excited to see what Scarlet 2/3'' has to offer because I am on the fence on buying another Sony F900